The American presidential system

The cohabitation between the President and the Congress in the United States I - An ambiguous constitution separating the powers while forcing their collaboration A - The Congress in theory as the main legislative source B - Chairman, a Chief Executive powers important theoretical controlled by Congress II - An institutional balance guarantees reciprocal controls measures enhancing collaboration but in reality to a presidential regime A - The power of the Executive theoretically important, issue legislative policy B - The current President as head of a strong Executive Introduction: "When in the same person or the same body of judicial, legislative power was held in the Executive power, there is point of freedom" is the collection of Charles de Montesquieu in the spirit of the laws on the principle of separation of powers in 1748. The American Constitution of 1787 is part of this perspective. Indeed, the constituents of 1787 refused to impose a hierarchy between the powers and enclosing them. To compensate the possible excess of powers of a strong executive or a powerful legislative was then establishes a crossing of the responsibilities listed as safe and the best way to avoid these possible excess. So was the need for close collaboration between the two institutions are the President and the Congress, then giving rise to an inevitable cohabitation of these last two. The Supreme Court is in some way a third power and plays a very important role in American policy and also coexists with the Congress and the President. However, the subject concerned with the relationship and the cohabitation of these last two institutions. These two institutions, which are the Congress and the President are respectively the legislative power and executive power, while it is necessary, we see it later, make a few nuances. It is for this that we will deal with cohabitation in the sense of a collaboration between the Capitol and the White House, reflecting the face of politics in the United States. Indeed, the study of the cohabitation of the President and the U.S. Congress we thinning on the key role of each of these institutions to specific roles. In addition this analysis allows us to a better understanding of the policy of the United States but geopolitics in today's world as the superpower of the country posing himself as "Constable of the world". The coexistence of these two powers is necessary and appears as a simple consequence of the separation of powers. Separation organized by articles of the first and only Constitution in the history of the United States, the constitution of 1787 and based on the system of "Check & Balance" otherwise said on the system of checks and balances. Unlike in France where reign the model 1958 establishing of the President and the Government through an Executive fort and giving the Parliament a legislative power of lesser importance, the US Congress is by far considered as the most powerful in the world. However, this power under the constitution of 1787 the President is in no is not weakened. We are currently seeing with the power of significant importance to George w. Bush. However, we also note the concern of Republicans victory of Democrats worn by Nancy Pelosi in the elections of the members of the House of representatives and the Senate in November 2006. Here is the illustration of the thought of Edward Corwin who wrote a "such division of powers, because it is ambiguous, is an invitation to the fight". The cohabitation of the two institutions two centuries illustrates this phenomenon. We face a Congressional plan or a presidential system? System of balance of power, established by the constitution of 1787 with powers specific to each institutions but also a reciprocal control sign mutual neutralization, does not actually place a presidential regime sign of an Executive strong and contrary to the values of 1787? We multitude to respond by first studying non-theoretical rigidity of the separation of powers organized by the (I) constitution and the means of controls in place by the latter to ensure institutional balance which in reality gives rise to a presidential system (II) I - An ambiguous constitution separating the powers while forcing their collaboration The confrontation of articles I and II of the Constitution highlights the fundamental ambiguity of a text separating powers while forcing their collaboration. We see therefore all first the primary role of the Congress to legislate (A) then that the President has important powers but remains under the grip of the Congress (B) A - Theory as Congress main legislative source The Congress is the legislative institution. It is composed of the House of representatives and the Senate. This bicameralism is established by the constitution to prevent a dictatorship of a unicameralism English experience. The House of representatives represents the population with 435 members elected every two years. The Senate it is composed of 100 senators elected for 6 years representatives of the Federated States. The Congress to exercise its legislative authority met in annual session and in debates. The Congress has a derived constituent power but also a legislative and budgetary authority. Indeed, theoretically the legislative and budgetary authority is shared between the two rooms. However we will see later how the influence of the President both of the initiative as base texts, is important. In addition the Congress has control of public services and commissions of inquiry but only if their objective is legislative. Finally it is the Congress that allows the declarations of war and the Senate ratified the Treaty by a majority of two-thirds. Congress is therefore an important legislative source with a wide range of jurisdiction, it is therefore essential to develop laws. However this legislative function coexists with the Executive which is represented by the President. President considered a leader of an independent State and the powers important but by the crossing of the powers remaining in theory under the control of the Congress. B - Chairman, a Chief Executive powers important theoretical controlled by Congress 1) A seemingly independent undisputed master Unlike the France where the President and the Prime Minister are two separate people, the US President is both head of State and head of Government. The US President is elected for four years and be re-elected to that only once which prevent him in no case to exercise its function and to arise as an institution independent and with powers the President making an undisputed master of policy. The Chairman is independent. It is first irresponsible before Congress, this fact is a very responsible Executive only before the nation that has elected it and makes it therefore still more independent. In addition the President has a broad presidential team giving it independence not least with the Office of the President, the White House Office and other subsidiary bodies. The team is us it will be of considerable influence thus strengthening his power. The President is also Chief of the armed forces, this status then to conduct military operations. It is also the undisputed master of foreign policy because it determines and driven this last. Finally it has the right of grace and the right of veto that we will deal with later. However some prize by the President, through his privileged status, require the approval of Congress to prevent a dictatorship of an Executive fort. 2) The necessary consent of Congress showing a kind of dependency that Congressional "The President took the first place in the field of responsibilities;" "but it is perfectly true that its effective power is largely dependent on the cooperation of Congress", André Tunc described the perception of the constituents in the cohabitation of these two institutions are the Congress and the President. Indeed it is true that, despite its important powers in the Executive area the President needs the consent of the Congress for some measures. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but only Congress can declare war and only the latter is empowered to raise funds for the maintenance of the armed forces. We have seen President is the undisputed master of foreign policy and the head of diplomacy as it negotiates treaties, but only the Senate may ratify the treaties by a two-thirds majority and no Ambassador can be appointed without the advice and consent of the Senate. Only the Congress finally has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." The President therefore shares its powers with the Congress which perfectly reflects this crossing of power and not a rigid separation of the latter. Is therefore not really a separation rigid powers but rather a real division of powers that characterize the cohabitation of the Congress and the President. Indeed, "It was never intended that none of these three powers would share or control the actions of the other two" are the words of Madison on the perception of Montesquieu. A division of powers to ensure essential to the institutional balance. In addition this institutional balance is characterized by multiple systems of reciprocal controls Frontlist actually conducive to presidential politics. II - An institutional balance guarantees reciprocal controls measures enhancing collaboration but in reality to a presidential regime In respect of the system of Check and Balances, is established means of encroaching on the privileged domain controls of the other so that they offset each other and avoid excess of powers initiatives. We will first study the controls, in important theory, of the legislative to the Executive with the role of the Impeachment and political representation in Congress (A) then see that the current President is be really powerful and independent that had established the constituents of 1787 (B) A - The power of the Executive theoretically important, issue legislative policy 1) The Impeachment as ultimate manifestation of Check & Balance system The power of Supreme control is to Congress the impeachment. The Capitol is in effect through this procedure, remove the President of his duties under certain conditions. The House of representatives has, if it gets 50% of the vote, the right to impeach the President for according to article I of the constitution "treason, concussion or other crimes and offences"; but only the Senate has the power to judge the impeachments. An impeachment may convicted a President by a majority of two-thirds. However none have actually leads to cause of failure of the impeachment or by highly deterrent force of the latter. Indeed the history of the Presidents of the United States is the illustration. The first was in 1887 that is actually put in danger the successor of Lincoln, a. Johnson, except that the procedure of impeachment failed to lead to the Senate in a voice almost. More recently Clinton has been subject to the procedure of impeachment. It was in 1998 that was indicted President Clinton by the House of representatives having retained 2 charges, perjury and obstruction of Justice following relations falsely ignored with an intern in the White House, Monica Lewinsky. Once the indictment approved by the House of representative, the Senate arose as a genuine political judge. It is the support of Democrats, party of Clinton, which enabled him to avoid the dismissal of its functions. It shows that what is originally a court case was turned into a political problem which the support of their Chief appeared as necessary even if the latter is certainly criminal guilty, conviction recognized by Democrats who voted against the charge. "Through the procedure of impeachment the Congress arises in fact must submit the resignation of the Government." French President can dissolve the National Assembly while the American President cannot dispose of this as long as real political when judge of criminal responsibility who is transformed according to P. Gérard "in political responsibility," because it is sanctioned by the removal of the President However the procedure of impeachment used in 1974 against Nixon in the Watergate case appeared to return to the original spirit of the means of control, but the hasty resignation of Nixon on August 5, he avoided a reelection indictment by the House of representatives. It then resides in the impeachment real highly deterrent power. This procedure can be similar in France to the motion of censure brought by article 49 (2) of the constitution. Indeed it provides that "the National Assembly engages the responsibility of the Government by the vote of a motion of censure. If the latter, proposed by 1/10 of the members, led "the Prime Minister must submit to the President of the Republic the resignation of the Government." 2) A current cohabitation between Republicans and Democrats, reducing the powers of the President It is in the issue of political parties that is in fact the proper functioning of the collaboration of these two institutions, which are the Congress and the President. Indeed the Congress has to defeat or to relax the policy conducted by an Executive fort. First of all the Congress has a very important right, the vote of the precious budget for President because it is this budget which will guide its internal and foreign policy. In addition the Congress has of commission of inquiry providing the power of permanent monitoring of the implementation by the administration of all the laws between their duties but also a judicial power. By commissions of inquiry the Congress has a powerful control over the whole of presidential politics. It is for these reasons that it is necessary for e President to have the political support of the Congress. Indeed, if a Republican President has the support of a Republican Congress it is then easier to practise the policy proper. This because the obtaining of an adequate budget on the part of the majority party in the Capitol and the fact that the threat of impeachment is almost non-existent. However, since the November 2006 elections where there has been the triumph of Democrats as well in the House of representatives and the Senate, phenomenon having not reached since 1954, things are different. It is a bad news for President Bush who will have to work with the Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi but also review its policy and enhance the collaboration between the Presidency and the Congress. However the democratic ambitions will "face the political reality" given the strong executive and the narrowness of their majority. More that a Senator has the capacity with the "filibuster" almost indefinitely block a law, which is to a filibuster if 60 senators does not prevent it. It will be very difficult for the Democrats to lead, disillusionment with them in hope to change things. As Edward Corwin said "such A Division of powers, because it is ambiguous, is an invitation to the fight", a struggle bringing real competition policy between the White House and the Capitol. This recent cohabitation between Democrats and Republicans should certainly strengthen competition but low yet the dominance of the President to the Congress. Dominance until this well presented with the right of veto that indeed reflects a presidential regime. There is indeed a breach of the theoretical equality of powers for the benefit of the President. B - The current President as head of a strong Executive 1) The expression of a strong power, the right of veto Each institution has a "weapon" pointed at the other, the Congress as we saw earlier has the Impeachment the President has veto power. Real weapon policy to counteract the excesses of the Congress or which transgresses the rules of presidential politics, the right of veto is the symbol of an Executive fort. Considered as a weapon Supreme but not absolute may be in theory in turn cancelled by a Congress resolution passed by a majority of two thirds of the members in each of the two chambers. In reality and in the history of the United States, rare are the times where the use of this power was reversed. Indeed, it was first used on a non-regular basis by American Presidents. Some made a misuse while others used it only very rarely. Roosevelt made from the first. He used this power from the Congress 635 times in 12 years, as Truman used it 250 times. In addition we find that these vetoes were that very rarely overcome by Congress then the components created this jurisdiction to limit the abuse of this right. 4% Of the vetoes overcome by Congress illustrate the low possibility to oppose. It is indeed necessary to meet two-thirds of voters in each room, American political life here also playing an important role. Despite the desire of constituents to limit executive power there is in fact a dominance of the latter. According to Patrick Gaulin "the low proportion of veto overturned by Congress demonstrates that this faculty to prevent remains an essential weapon for the head of State". This dominance is strengthened by the possibility on the part of the President to use the pocket veto. End-of-session the President promulgates not act, the Congress is then obliged to resume all of the discussion of the next session. The threat of the veto will suffice to give the Congress. We are here sympathetic powers granted to the President of the French Republic to enact laws. But the President cannot govern without his presidential team extremely influential to the Congress making him the "chief legislator." 2) The President as Chief legislator The President has gradually emerged as Chief Legislative Chief work contrary to the doctrine established by the constitution. It mentions that "all legislative powers will be entrusted to a Congress of the United States.". It has however proved that the President could in no case remain indifferent to the development of the laws. Assisted by a highly influential presidential team, it can easily guide the budgetary legislation through various as well economic reports. Indeed the vote of the budget is an exclusive jurisdiction in the Congress but since 1921 with the budget and accounting act", to the Chairman of the propose to the Congress, while significantly reducing the influence of the latter in the matter. So it will be very hard for the yet majority opposition to the Congress of fully respecting the budget concerning the very polemical commitment of the United States in the Iraq conflict. This increases its power and "imbalance" the Division of powers by the constitution of 1787. It also exerts its influence in other ways such as by promising benefits and subsidies for the constituencies of deputies or senators. The figures illustrate the effectiveness of its influence because two thirds of the presidential recommendations have been a culmination; This is the case for Reagan who lives 82% of these proposals lead. However also largely depends of the political color of the Congress. To the President is be the indirect cause of a majority of the legislation. More President can send troops without the opinion of the Congress but has since a resolution of 1973 transmit a report within 48 h. the Congress may then require if it refuses the presidential action withdrawal within 60 days. The White House influence still by there the view of the Capitol. We see therefore that the President should just not only to execute the laws as it should but influence to lead its own policy. "Must be that, by the arrangement of things, the power shuts down power" wrote Charles de Montesquieu always in the spirit of the laws, as is the summary of the original thought of the constituents. It is the foundation of the system of "Check and balance". Indeed, the Congress cannot overthrow the Ministers and the President may not dissolve Congress, has Congress of the impeachment, the President of the right of veto. However and despite the meager hopes, conferred by the victory of Democrats, this institutional balance of prestige is actually well utopique… Blog de géostratégie et de géopolitique en rapport avec les problèmes sécuritaires des nations, le développement économique, l'Actualité, l'Histoire du monde, les conflits en l’Europe, Amérique, Asie, Afrique, et leurs enjeux stratégiques.